RateTheRef

Quote from: DublinRef on Sun 19 Dec 2021 17:14

Liverpool should have had a penalty for the push in the back. IMO VAR again should intervene here.

Regardless of that and the missed RC (IMO) for Kane, Klopp should have been red carded for his repeated dissent after the YC.

On Tierney's performance: "You don't need a ref that helps you. You need a ref who is clear and objective. In three decisive decisions, he was once right and that was with Robbo, and twice wrong. All three were against us."

Surely that will earn him a spell in the stands from the FA.

Fair enough, but with so many high profile errors by SG1 officials recently then Tierney is going to have plenty of company from his SG1 cohort in the stands. However, I am sure Messrs Woolmer, Ward, Simpson and Davies from SG2 will step up to the plate for Premier League matches.

I missed Ref Watch live, but from the on-line article, Gallagher agreed Kane was indeed very lucky and that Liverpool should have had a penalty for the foul on Jota.  Stephen Warnock was incredulous apparently that VAR hadn't advised a review at the monitor for the Kane foul.

Incidentally, Dermott also agreed Newcastle should have had a penalty when Ederson took out Fraser.

It could be said these were 3 obvious errors compounded by VAR, but I think those familiar with Ref Watch and Dermott's explanations might acknowledge it's somewhat rare for him to be outright critical of 3 decisions in a single program. When not defending the referee, he often fudges his opinion so it's not clear what he actually thinks.   

Do I assume there's been no comment from Mr Riley or a PGMOL statement about the controversial weekend incidents?



 

Quote from: bruntyboy on Mon 20 Dec 2021 10:00

Quote from: DublinRef on Sun 19 Dec 2021 17:14

Liverpool should have had a penalty for the push in the back. IMO VAR again should intervene here.

Regardless of that and the missed RC (IMO) for Kane, Klopp should have been red carded for his repeated dissent after the YC.

On Tierney's performance: "You don't need a ref that helps you. You need a ref who is clear and objective. In three decisive decisions, he was once right and that was with Robbo, and twice wrong. All three were against us."

Surely that will earn him a spell in the stands from the FA.

Which part of his statement do you disagree with then ?

I'm not saying that I don't disagree with Klopp but that statement from Klopp implies that he thought Tierney was not objective (and therefore biased) and we've seen what happens when other managers have made comments pre and post match about referees before.

Hackett certainly isn’t holding back on his thoughts on yesterday’s shambles…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10328391/Ex-Premier-League-ref-blasts-Paul-Tierneys-controversial-decisions-Liverpools-draw-vs-Tottenham.html

And I have to say I agree with Keith H on this occasion. Who wouldn't in the circumstances seen over the weekend? Paul Tierney undoubtedly had a poor 'day-at-the-office' at Spurs, but before consigning him to the naughty step for a period, I think it should be said that Chris Kavanagh did not exactly cover himself in glory either. The Harry Kane challenge should at least have been reviewed, and if Paul thought that the barge on the Liverpool player in the penalty area was fair shoulder-to-shoulder, then Chris should have asked him to review as a potential clear and obvious error.

Do you know what was said between Chris & Paul? Can you confirm 100% that Chris didn't say that he thought Paul should have a look at it again? I don't know, Chris might have been slurping tea and eating bourbons at the time for all I know but equally he may well have recommended a review but the ref felt happy with his decision & that it was correct so didn't want or need to review. The only people who know what was said is them - anything is speculation.  It's about time that the PGMOL played the dialogue between them like they do in the USA. It would clear a lot up. The TV pundits can hear it so why they don't go that extra step & allow it to be played for all to hear.

Quote from: Acme Thunderer on Mon 20 Dec 2021 19:40

And I have to say I agree with Keith H on this occasion. Who wouldn't in the circumstances seen over the weekend? Paul Tierney undoubtedly had a poor 'day-at-the-office' at Spurs, but before consigning him to the naughty step for a period, I think it should be said that Chris Kavanagh did not exactly cover himself in glory either. The Harry Kane challenge should at least have been reviewed, and if Paul thought that the barge on the Liverpool player in the penalty area was fair shoulder-to-shoulder, then Chris should have asked him to review as a potential clear and obvious error.

Do you know what was said between Chris & Paul? Can you confirm 100% that Chris didn't say that he thought Paul should have a look at it again? I don't know, Chris might have been slurping tea and eating bourbons at the time for all I know but equally he may well have recommended a review but the ref felt happy with his decision & that it was correct so didn't want or need to review. The only people who know what was said is them - anything is speculation.  It's about time that the PGMOL played the dialogue between them like they do in the USA. It would clear a lot up. The TV pundits can hear it so why they don't go that extra step & allow it to be played for all to hear.

Do we even know the policy/protocol on this bmb?  I was under the impression that if after a conversation between VAR and referee, a review at the monitor was recommended, the referee would be obliged to do so.  I could understand a preliminary exchange in which VAR asks the referee what did he see, and dependent on the response may conclude it's a subjective decision and not advise a review, even if his personal decision would have been different. Not clear and obvious. However, if VAR says something like "Paul, I've got a better angle on that challenge and I recommend a review, I really don't see how a referee could avoid it.  That might/should have applied in the Kane case where it seemed to me Tierney's line of sight was not great, and although he may have seen the force and speed may not have seen clearly the point of contact. In that scenario, surely VAR could be criticised for not recommending he looks at the screen.  For the foul on Jota, Tierney was reasonably close as I recall so it's possible I suppose his comments to VAR may have pre-empted any recommendation to review.

Since the evident change in approach so that VAR only intervenes for clear and obvious, I'm not aware of any occasions where the referee in the PL has stuck to his original decision.  Is that the case?  Prior to the change, there were of course several instances of referees keeping to their initial decision.

The other aspect these recent incidents raise to my mind is whether ARs, with VAR in place, are as active now in communicating their own opinions to referees.  There have been several occasions where it appeared the AR (or even 4o) would have had a better view although I appreciate their eyes may have been focused more for offside say.
 

Quote from: bmb on Mon 20 Dec 2021 20:04

Quote from: Acme Thunderer on Mon 20 Dec 2021 19:40

And I have to say I agree with Keith H on this occasion. Who wouldn't in the circumstances seen over the weekend? Paul Tierney undoubtedly had a poor 'day-at-the-office' at Spurs, but before consigning him to the naughty step for a period, I think it should be said that Chris Kavanagh did not exactly cover himself in glory either. The Harry Kane challenge should at least have been reviewed, and if Paul thought that the barge on the Liverpool player in the penalty area was fair shoulder-to-shoulder, then Chris should have asked him to review as a potential clear and obvious error.

Do you know what was said between Chris & Paul? Can you confirm 100% that Chris didn't say that he thought Paul should have a look at it again? I don't know, Chris might have been slurping tea and eating bourbons at the time for all I know but equally he may well have recommended a review but the ref felt happy with his decision & that it was correct so didn't want or need to review. The only people who know what was said is them - anything is speculation.  It's about time that the PGMOL played the dialogue between them like they do in the USA. It would clear a lot up. The TV pundits can hear it so why they don't go that extra step & allow it to be played for all to hear.

Do we even know the policy/protocol on this bmb?  I was under the impression that if after a conversation between VAR and referee, a review at the monitor was recommended, the referee would be obliged to do so.  I could understand a preliminary exchange in which VAR asks the referee what did he see, and dependent on the response may conclude it's a subjective decision and not advise a review, even if his personal decision would have been different. Not clear and obvious. However, if VAR says something like "Paul, I've got a better angle on that challenge and I recommend a review, I really don't see how a referee could avoid it.  That might/should have applied in the Kane case where it seemed to me Tierney's line of sight was not great, and although he may have seen the force and speed may not have seen clearly the point of contact. In that scenario, surely VAR could be criticised for not recommending he looks at the screen.  For the foul on Jota, Tierney was reasonably close as I recall so it's possible I suppose his comments to VAR may have pre-empted any recommendation to review.

Since the evident change in approach so that VAR only intervenes for clear and obvious, I'm not aware of any occasions where the referee in the PL has stuck to his original decision.  Is that the case?  Prior to the change, there were of course several instances of referees keeping to their initial decision.

The other aspect these recent incidents raise to my mind is whether ARs, with VAR in place, are as active now in communicating their own opinions to referees.  There have been several occasions where it appeared the AR (or even 4o) would have had a better view although I appreciate their eyes may have been focused more for offside say.
 

The protocols issued by the PGMOL seem to change to suit the narrative so who knows what they are currently. Certainly at UEFA level if a VAR recommends review I believe the referee is then obliged to do so. UEFA have however always believed in OFR taking place where applicable, the PGMOL have not.  There is a preliminary exchange and it is the result of that exchange that determines if there is clear & obvious error and recommends the review. None of us know what Paul Tierney said to Chris Kavanagh - he may well have said something along the lines of, he's caught his ankle, the standing foot was not planted, I'm happy with a yellow which then then makes it subjective & VAR can't intervene, whether he wants to or not, as that is the protocol. Feels harsh to me to then blame the VAR for not intervening if & when protocol prevents him from doing just that. I don't know if that is the case here. One or the other or both, called it wrong, but without knowing what was said between them we really don't know which way it was. I think we all agree it was a wrong call either way!